draft-ietf-ccamp-tracereq-01.txt

[Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>]

serious quibbles maybe, not a discuss

randy



From: ops-dir
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>,ops directorate <ops-dir@ops.ietf.org>
Subject: draft-ietf-ccamp-tracereq-01.txt
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 17:07:35 -0400

At 09:23 PM 4/11/2003 -0400, Randy Bush wrote:


>*****  o Tracing Requirements for Generic Tunnels (None)
>            <draft-ietf-ccamp-tracereq-01.txt>
>         Token: Wijnen, Bert
>         Note: New revision Addresses comments.
>         Now on IESG agenda for April 17th
>         Responsible: Bert

1. this document looks like it might be the union of all the
   "i want it to do <foo>" requests. an important part of 
   requirements documents is knowing what to not require.
   do they have any?
2. i am concerned about the security stuff that they've buried in 
   their requirements. nothing definite. it seems unwieldy. but
   then, so many security things do...
3. section 4.1 and 4.2 seem to be worded with a particular
   implementation in mind. requirements documents ought not
   specify solutions (eg, 4.2 talks about udp, why can't i use 
   icmp?)
4. justification of requirements might be nice.

however, given that requirements documents are ignored
by the world (except for the corporate head-patters),
this document could say sdlkhj n3poiytjhsdfgn and the
world would not care.